This is the latest post in a
series about Bertrand
Russell's essay
Why I am not a Christian, in which I run through his various
arguments and show that for the most part (there are a few exceptions)
they either don't apply to
classical theism, or are just completely invalid in the first place. The
first part of Russell's essay discussed the existence of God; the second
part the moral character of Jesus. In this post, I discuss the opening
section of his discussion of Jesus' character.

Before turning to his complaints about Jesus' life and teachings,
Russell starts by paying some compliments, albeit ones intended to cast
Christians in a bad light for being insufficiently Christian.

But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone
slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Judge not, that you be not judged.

Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would
borrow from you.

And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "You lack one
thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will
have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

Russell highlights these four sayings as good moral principles spoken by
Jesus. One might ask why Russell believes them to be good, but that is a
question for the next few posts. Russell's complaint, however, is that Christians
on the whole don't follow these principles. Punch the prime minister of
the time in the jaw, and you will likely receive some retaliation.
Christian magistrates are in a hopeless position, for they are commanded
by religion not to pronounce judgement and by the nature of their jobs to
do so. Politicians and credit card companies
frequently fail to give or lend to those who ask them. How many Christians
sell all they have and give it to the poor?

Russell finishes with the words:

All these, I think, are good maxims, although they are a little difficult
to live up to. I do not profess to live up to them myself; but then after
all, it is not quite the same thing as for a Christian.

The bulk of this statement I would not disagree with. They are good maxims.
They are more than a little difficult to live up to; they are utterly
impossible to do so consistently and completely. Russell certainly didn't
live up to them himself. Neither do I, for that matter. But does it matter
that Christians fall short of the standard?

So how should we respond to this charge?

First of all, I would say that the charge is not quite as serious as
Russell supposes. Context is important; literary form is important.
Russell pre-empts this objection by writing

I think you might find that he [the prime minister] thought this text
was intended in a figurative sense.

But one cannot just dismiss the point as quickly as this. Jesus frequently
employed hyperbole, and in his moral teaching no less than elsewhere.
When we are asked to turn the other cheek, the point that Jesus is making
is that Christians (indeed, all followers of moral truth) should not
retaliate or seek vengeance. Jesus, of course, was not the first person to
say this, nor the last; but he might have been both the first and the last
person to truly live the principle.

For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows
while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are
beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you
endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have
been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example,
so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was
deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in
return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting
himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body
on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his
wounds you have been healed.

To say simply "Don't retaliate," would make the point directly, but that
wasn't Jesus' way. Jesus would exaggerate the point, to make it more
easily memorable; to stand out.

Then we have the need to read the text in context. Both the wider context, and
the immediate context.

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgement you pronounce
you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to
you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not
notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your
brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log
in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye,
and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's
eye.

Judge not, that you be not judged out of context seems like
a wide ranging pronouncement, but the next, clarifying, sentence narrows
the application. Jesus' warning here is not so much about judgement as
about hypocrisy.
Don't condemn others for things you do yourself. And since we are guilty
of most things ourselves (in thought certainly, if not necessarily in
deed), we ought not to condemn people, otherwise we ourselves will by the
same measure also stand condemned. Then, we narrow it further, with the
next passage, which makes it clear that Jesus is discussing personal
relationships, between brothers and friends, and personal hypocrisy.
Taking it all together, it is clear that magistrates in courts of law
or councils in the church, or even parents disciplining their children,
are not the subject of Jesus' saying, at least when they are acting in
office and out of agape love. Nor does it mean that we should not
criticise certain behaviours or attitudes. After all, Jesus himself in
this passage judged those people who judge hypocritically. To extend this
saying to legal as well as personal judgements is to ignore the wider
biblical context which clearly states that one of the duties of lawful
authority is to pass judgements on wrongdoers, both to protect the wider
community and to help the wrongdoers themselves recognise their evil.

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the
name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an
idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler - not even to eat with such a
one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside
the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the
evil person from among you."

Then we need to look at the circumstances. The man who was told to sell
all he had was a man who had made material possessions his God. He
believed himself to be moral, and probably in most respects was as
close to goodness as anyone else in society. But he valued his own
wealth and luxury as more important than he ought; to truly follow
God means that one should renounce all rivals. For him, that meant
renouncing all money and possessions; for others it might mean
renouncing a television or job or political party. Jesus was asking
the man to let go of that which prevented him from being a whole-hearted
follower of Jesus. The command was directed towards that one man, and
it targeted his own individual weakness. It is applicable to all of us,
because we each have our weakness. For some, it is a love of money
and material wealth. For others, it is something else. For those who
love money above all, they should renounce that love and show it by
giving all they don't need
to the poor (once again, Jesus used hyperbole to make his point). For
others, it might be a sports team that needs to be surrendered, or
a television show, or to wear the latest fashion when sackcloth provides
all we need, or the desire for a new phone when the clockwork
antique we currently have still does its job: whatever it
is that we regard as more important than God. We have to show our
devotion by putting that thing aside, just as the rich man was asked to
put aside his own idol. He couldn't do it, at least not on that
occasion. The question is are we any better?

Secondly, I think the point can be made is that Russell does not realise
the extent to which many (not all) Christians do follow these
commandments. Yes, there are exceptions, and plenty of them. But there
are also those who might seem to be exceptions who are not. Not all
who claim to be Christian are Christian. This is not a 'No true
Scotsman' fallacy; one of the key steps in becoming a Christian is to
repent of one's wrongdoings, not only by asking forgiveness but by
turning away from the desire to do evil. A Christian would still
commit wrong, through ignorance, weakness, deliberate acts where
the mind momentarily wanders from its fundamental principles; but no
Christian could consistently claim that what is really evil is a good
while having truly repented from their sins. To desire to be morally
good is part of the definition of what it means to be Christian; thus
if one does not desire goodness one is not a Christian, whatever one
claims or believes about oneself. Yet there are people who claim to be
Christian who do openly pronounce that the evil that they or others
do is not really evil.

For example, I would struggle to say that anyone, no matter what they
oppress, who is not moved by the sight of someone in poverty is truly
Christian. How best to exercise that compassion is a matter of
legitimate dispute (does one give him a fish, or fishing rod,
directions to the nearest river, and most importantly train him in
the self-discipline and patience needed to use it well? -- the
difference between the
compassionate part of the political left and the compassionate part
of the political right), but all genuine Christians
would feel the desire to help if they are able to do so. That some
prominent people claim to be Christian and yet are obviously bound by
the idolatry of greed should not make us ignore the good done behind
the scenes by Christians and Churches who are out of the public gaze.

But, of course, these last two points are merely tinkering. They blunt
Russell's edge a little, but it still seems to be a fearsome blade,
and if Russell's assumptions were correct, it would give a mortal blow
to any Christian (though even that would merely prove the Christian
life to be impossible rather than Christianity false). There is no
doubt that no Christian, not even the best (and I am far from the best
myself), lives up to these standards even when interpreted most
generously. But Russell makes a key wrong assumption, which destroys
his argument. He assumes that Christians are measured by their ability
to satisfy Christ's teaching. That is not what Christianity is about
at all.

This brings me to my third and most important point. These teachings
set a moral standard, one for us to aim at but which we cannot reach.
And that is why they are set so high: so we can realise that on our
own we are helpless to satisfy God. We have to fall on God's mercy and
grace. Jesus' whole life was to provide a way out; a way for God to
reach out and help us reach that standard in spite of our own
inadequacies. No Christian reaches the standard of Christ's teaching.
Christians, nor anybody else, cannot become good by their own
efforts, but solely by trusting in God. Human efforts to craft a heaven
on earth will always end up with a version of hell, just as they
always have in the past. If the standard were something easy to keep,
we might start thinking that we were good enough to reach heaven on our
own -- that is a fatal arrogance. Jesus' teaching makes our inadequacies and
the impossibility of the task clear;
they force us to fall on the alternative path laid down by Jesus'
sacrifice.

A Christian must still aim to be good, and work their best towards it,
while accepting that he or she will never achieve that goal by their
own efforts. It is like the high jumper who wants to break the world
record by more than two meters. He won't succeed without a
six
million dollar enhancement, but he will go further if he tries.

So are Christians hypocrites for not living up to the standard any
more than non-Christians? No. A hypocrite is someone who judges
the quality other's eyes while ignoring that he has a log obscuring his own
vision. A hypocrite loudly pronounces the failures of others, while
failing to acknowledge their own. Christians have that log, just as
anyone else, but unlike
others we fully recognise how far short of the goal we are, while
still desiring that we be good and acting as much as is in our power
to achieve that end, trusting in God to do the rest. If Christians
were defined as people who satisfied Jesus' commandments, then there
would indeed be a problem. But Christians are defined as people who
acknowledge their weakness and trust God to renew their characters
and consequently endow them with all virtue. Having weaknesses is no
barrier to acknowledging them and trusting that God desires our good
despite them.

Whether Christians succeed in living up to Jesus' standard is not the
issue. More pertinent is whether or not Christians try to live up to that
standard; whether Christians by their actions at the point of crisis
as well as by words when sitting comfortably agree that Jesus' teachings
provide the standard. Christians fall short; so do people of every other
creed.

However, whether Christ's moral teaching is easy or difficult, whether
or not it is followed in practice, the main question is whether or not
it is true. Is it good to not be judgemental towards others; to not seek
vengeance; to not hoard excessively when there are poor who need it more
than ourselves; to desire good for our enemies? This is the question that
matters when assessing the truth of Christianity. One cannot blame
Christianity for Christians who breaks its commandments and consequently
do evil. The fault then is with the people who fail to live up to the
religion, not the religion itself. One can blame Christianity if there
are occasions when Christians do evil by following its commandments. Is
that the case? That will be the discussion of the next posts.

Some html formatting is supported,such as <b> ... <b> for bold text , < em>... < /em> for italics, and <blockquote> ... </blockquote> for a quotation
All fields are optional
Comments are generally unmoderated, and only represent the views of the person who posted them.
I reserve the right to delete or edit spam messages, obsene language,or personal attacks. However, that I do not delete such a message does not mean that
I approve of the content. It just means that I am a lazy little bugger who can't be bothered to police his own blog.